Talk:Civil partnership in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been assessed as mid-importance on the assessment scale.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1. /Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Photo

The main photo on this article is cool: but have the two ladies in question given their permission? The copyright seems to be unknown, also. Would be a shame if it got wiped. :( 86.153.93.200 17:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

A merge has been suggested in the Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom talk page. Much reference is made to civil partnerships in that article. Please discuss on the other talk page. Bamkin 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The merge (which by the by was mooted six months ago and gathered no support in that time) is a terrible idea and will confuse this well-written article. 86.153.93.200 07:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The merge suggestion has not even been tagged properly! Pffff! 86.153.93.200 12:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement

Improvement to this article would include more links, there is loads of black that could be blue. Also for the law project, legal citation and referencing may be a good idea.

Am I alone in finding this sort of comment pointless? If you feel the article needs more links, do some research and put some in! I'm not even sure the claim is justified: a read-thru gives me the impression that the article is self-explanitory and I can't see where 'adding blue' is even possible let alone desirable. There are 12 links in the first 3 lines, for goodness sake!  :-) Pls sign comments. Cheers! 86.153.93.200 07:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Blowed if I can see what the first editor is on about. Maybe s/he should get the ball rolling? Vacant Stare 10:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is good on detail as far as England and Wales is concerned. However the Anglocentric nature of the writing is annoying for those wishing to know the detail for Northern Ireland or Scotland. It might be preferable to break the article down into the constituent legal systems so that the Parliamentary basis of the law of the whole UK can be set out. By way of example the following acts of Parliament referred to in the artcile do not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland:

Children Act 1989, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Magistrates' Court Act 1978, Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and Family Law Act 1996.

The Civil Partnership Act has distinct parts for each of the legal systems of the United Kingdom - Part 2 England and Wales, Part 3 Scotland, and Part 4 Northern Ireland. The detailed section references in the article to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 only apply to England and Wales as they belong to Part 2. GraemeMoughan 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Breaking down the entire article, as you suggest, is overkill - for the overwhelming majority of the Act, the application is largely the same regardless of where one lives (and I write as a Scot). Where differences exist, these can be noted in in the text, or in parentheses or footnotes.
Your claim re Anglo-centrism is unfair towards the main contributors: how can anything which covers, by your own admission, England and Wales in good detail be viewed as Anglocentric?  :-) It merely doesn't note as fully as you would wish the minor differences in NI and Scotland. Not at all the same thing. 81.151.37.228 08:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My claims may seem unfair however the differences exist none the less. I will accept that as a Solicitor in England and Wales (who is also a Scot) that I am probably being pedantic :-) However, I do feel that the article needs to either be a basic summary or a detailed summary of the law of the three jurisdictions. The statutes that I originally referred to above are not UK wide and this is actually an important point. The article does not state that this is the case as it presents itself as a UK wide summary.

For example in the formation section of the article reference is made as to how a Civil Partnership can be formed. Statutory authority is made purely to sections that only apply to England and Wales. My point is that if we really need to get down to the dry nuts and bolt detail of section numbers then the relevant sections for all three systems; rather than just one should be cited. 35 sections of the act are given over to forming a Civil Partnership in England and Wales. 15 sections to form one in Scotland and 21 to form one in Northern Ireland. (There is no such thing as "Standard Procedure" or "Special Procedure" outside England and Wale.) Maybe the easy way around would be to confine the narrative to outlining the principles and consigning section numbers to footnotes or to openly state that the article concerns itself in the main with the law of England and Wales.

GraemeMoughan 23:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Graeme:
While I would certainly not suggest that you are being pedantic, I do think you are over-staing the problem. Where differences exist, these can be stated in footnotes/parentheses. This is far from being the only Act with different section/Part numbers in the constituent parts of the UK, and this is the usual method of dealing with those differences. Inserting "except in Northern Ireland where Section X applies, Part Y in Scotland only" repeatedly into the text just creates a terribly disjointed read, and such alterations would almost certainly be edited out on that basis. Alternatively, you could create a sub-article/paragragh (Variations in NI and Scotland, maybe?) if you wish. This may, in fact, be the best answer.
Chris 81.151.37.228 06:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

I'm a little confused as to why this article is located where it is now. Originally we had generically-named articles on "Civil unions in (country)". Now, in some articles, that is no longer the case, i.e. this article and Pacte civil de solidarité. On the other hand, we still have, for example, Civil unions in Sweden, rather than Registered partnerships in Sweden. It seems to me that for consistency's sake, either all the articles should use the indigeneous name or else they should all use "civil union". No? Carolynparrishfan 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We have Civil Partnerships not civil unions. If other articles are at fault, I agree, they should be altered. Titling this article Civil Unions when there is no such thing as a civil union in the UK is confusing, inaccurate and pointless. 81.151.37.228 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
My concern is only for consistency. "Civil unions" is used as a generic name for such relationships, whether they are called "civil partnerships", "pacte civile de solidarite", or "registered partnerships". My question is: do we use the generic name or the indigeneous names? I don't see that using the former in some cases and the latter in others is really an option. Carolynparrishfan 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I understood the question. The current situation manifestly *is* an option and seems to be causing no real-world difficulty. The obvious solution is simple: to do a redirect based on the generic term linking it to the local name, thus allowing searches for both. And as you say yourself, Civil Unions is *a* generic term, not necessarily *the* generic term: I read an article not five minutes ago that referred to "civil partnerships elsewhere in the world...".
You'll also notice that Civil Unions (according to the main article for such unions) are quoted as being "similar to" marriage and offering "similar" benefits - this is not the case with CPs, so you'd have to re-write that article, too.
I've used this site for reference work on many forms of alternatives to plain vanilla marriage, and not once have I (nor to my knowledge anyone else) been confused or unable to find what they wanted. In all honesty, I suggest not worrying about it... 81.151.37.228 09:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If it says without qualification that civil unions are similar to marriage, I will look at that, since how similar they are varies by country. Certainly, though, the UK law is among the more generous in its provisions, and it's simply inaccurate to say that "this is not the case with CPs". Civil partnerships are expressly designed to provide many of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, and being in a civil partnership is a legal impediment to marriage (and vice versa). I'm sure you're right that it causes no "real-world" confusion, but as Wikipedia editors, we have to be attuned to consistency. Being attuned to the real world, not so much. ;) Carolynparrishfan 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Civil partnerships are expressly designed to provide many of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples" - no, I am sorry but it is you who is in error. CPs provide identical benefits and responsibilities to British civil marriage: for goodness sake, this is even stated in the opening paragraph of this article and then linked to a sub-article listing those benefits/responsibilities! When we drafted the legislation (I had the honour of being involved in doing so) we went to extraordinary lengths to ensure this parity.
If you genuinely view the naming of other articles as a problem, please feel free to raise it through the proper channels. Discussing this issue on just one of the articles is not the way to go. Seek consensus - the help pages will guide you. I view it as a waste of time but others may view it differently. I have given my suggestion (using redirects) that covers your point: you did not acknowledge that suggestion.
There is a well-worn phrase about hobgoblins that springs to mind. 81.151.37.228 10:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I have created a redirect for Civil Unions in the United Kingdom that brings users to the correct page, this removing the highly unlikely danger of anyone stumbling about unable to find this article. The current title is correct for this article and no alteration is required: the suggested insistence on total obedience to consitency is simply untenable. Vacant Stare 10:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
81.151.37.228, You say that I am "in error", but go on to give a description of civil partnerships that I fully agree with...Is it the word "similar" that bothers you? I don't read that as meaning "but not identical", but I'd agree with you that in many countries (such as the UK) there is "parity" as you say in all but name. I will amend the "civil unions" article to clarify that in some countries, the benefits are not just similar but identical. Carolynparrishfan 01:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The redirect makes sense and perhaps something similar should be applied to the PACS articles? 81.151.37.228 07:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)